Debug Web MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

browser_get_network_request

Inspect a captured network request by session and request ID; returns redacted headers and opted-in bodies from memory without calling Chrome.

Instructions

Read one captured request with redacted headers and opted-in bodies from memory; does not call Chrome.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "request_id": "<request_id>"
    },
    "name": "browser_get_network_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request_id`	Yes
`session_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: headers are redacted, bodies are only present if opted-in, and the read is memory-only rather than a live Chrome call. It omits what happens on an unknown session_id/request_id, but the disclosure of data-loss and no-live-fetch semantics is genuinely informative.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (redacted headers, opted-in bodies, memory-only) earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No annotations and no output schema mean the description must cover more ground. It handles the read semantics and data caveats well but leaves parameter meaning and the not-found/missing-body behavior unaddressed, so it is only minimally sufficient for invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'one captured request' weakly implies request_id scoping but nothing explains the relationship between session_id and request_id or the expected formats.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Read one captured request'. The singular 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling browser_list_network_requests, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Saying the request comes 'from memory' and 'does not call Chrome' implies this only works on already-captured data, which is useful usage context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over browser_list_network_requests or browser_get_events, and states no prerequisites (e.g. that a capture session must exist).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server